Standards: What Are Daubert Standards?

process to the pubis. A ventral, midline incision was made. A visual inspection of the abdomen was

United States. In Washington, D.C. the court stated in the Frye v. United States case that expert testimony is only admissible if the science testified is by an expert who is generally accepted within the scientific community. Most courts followed the Fry standard until 1993, when the Supreme Court made its ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case. Many courts believe that the Frye standard provides greater protection than Daubert standard. There has been many controversies over whether evidence based forensic science should be allowed as evidence in the courtroom. Many people have argued this even before the Daubert case. Forensic science evidence can include fingerprints, bite-mark analysis, and tool mark identification. All of those types of forensic science evidence have been used as incriminating evidence against people in the courtroom. Forensic science evidence can be used in criminal and civil cases. Many states now follow the Daubert standard versus following the Frye standard. The Frye standard was used everywhere prior to the Daubert case. There are still a few states that follow the Frye standard instead of the Dabuert standard. Both cases were extremely important in allowing forensic evidence to be presented in the courtroom. Each case changed the way that forensic evidence is presented and how each bit of evidence is allowed in the

It will be performed using a method similar to the one used by Jenness in his experiment. This will in effect test the reproducibility and validity of the Jenness experiment. There are no contentious or controversial issues surrounding this experiment and its method, and it is certainly within the law i.e. there are no deceptions or misleading intentions toward the participant; it is fair.

Yes I find it credible. Rich Deem, the author has worked in basic science research for years and is currently working at Cedars-Sinai MC as a researcher/specialist; therefore, he has the experience and documents statistics and credible sources.

The admissibility of expert testimony from the past to the present, The Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 702 (1975) the revision of Rule 702 (2000) and (2010), Frye v United States (1923), Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), and Kumho Tire Co., v Carmichael (1999).

Were there any unexpected findings? What did the authors conclude? What did the results mean, and what are their implications?

3. Lancet’s editors should not have publish such a controversial study without further academic experiments and investigations.

Mainly in criminal act scene investigation, fingerprint machinery progressions have been responding to with arms open. The theory of biological exclusivity has been urbanized and substantiated by erudition and the judges have maintained this authenticity in the case of Daubert. Although the threat of inaccurate condemnation offers equally to ethical and feasible viewpoint on why dependable and legitimate forensic science is so significant, normal expert substantiation creed also dictates its legitimacy as a precondition for tolerability. Also in 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow made it unblemished that adjudicators have a gatekeeping answerability with admiration to expert substantiation. Federal courts as well as the states have comprised Daubert,

Obesity in America, is almost becoming as sensitive a subject as discrimination or racism. Iain Murray states, “Health statisticians use a formula called the Body Mass Index (BMI) to determine if individuals should be categorized as overweight.” We Americans allow ourselves to indulge in the idea that a simplistic scale can determine whether or not a citizen is healthy or overweight. The scale, which is a basis to determine health and proper weight standings for some, does nothing more than bring about improper readings and emotional distress to others and does not support good health standard.

The assessment includes: Date and time of procedure, name of provider, site of insertion, type of fluid infusing in each lumen, blood

similar test settings available in the literature [Daniels et al., 1995,Bano et al., 2009,Capozzoli et al., 2012].

Are the methods explained in sufficient detail to allow another scientist to replicate the study? If not, what details are missing?

Tort: refers to a type of law: means that an action has occurred that wrongfully harmed someone’s physical being or their belongings. These cases do not commit a crime, but one can be compensated which usually takes place in civil court.

“Race to the bottom,” the phrase coined for tax breaks and less governmental restrictions, may have a new meaning. Race to the bottom, our new educational initiative. US education levels are dropping and standardized testing is the root cause of such harm. Standardized testing needs to be just another tool in the toolbox, rather than a wonder product. Nelson Mendela said “education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world,” and if that weapon happens to be broken we might as well be Tony Stark without his suit, Lady Justice without her scale, a white girl without her phone, powerless.

The ELA PASS and ELA OAS standards look a lot alike when you look at the standards individually. Many teachers commented that it was the same standards. The PASS and OAS standards cover the same skills per grade, but there are fewer skills in the OAS compared to PASS. The PASS standards were more of a checklist to be marked off and then reviewed before the state assessment. The OAS standards are recursive and revisited as often as needed to help build the critical thinking skills. Writing was at the end of the PASS standards and was not connected to any other standard, but writing is incorporated in each of the OAS standards. Writing was taught in isolation with PASS, however; reading and writing are connected throughout the OAS standards.